A Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday upheld an order passed in 2019 by a Single Judge, that had set aside the appointment of K.R. Venugopal as Vice-Chancellor of the Bangalore University by the then Governor.
The Division Bench comprising Justice S. Sujatha and Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar passed the order while dismissing the appeals filed by Prof. Venugopal and the Governor (in high capacity as the chancellor of the university). They had questioned the September 24, 2019, order passed by the the Single Judge.
Prof. Venugopal continued as V-C as the Division Bench had in 2019 stayed the operation of the Single Judge’ order.
The Single Judge had quashed the June 12, 2018, order of appointment of Mr. Venugopal as Vice-Chancellor by holding that the Chancellor’s decision to appoint him to the post was contrary to Section 14(4) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2002, as the Chancellor had not taken “concurrence of the State government” for his appointment.
The Division Bench on Tuesday declined to accept the common argument put forward on behalf of all the appellants, the Chancellor, the State Government and Prof. Venugopal that no concurrence of the State Government was required as the Chancellor had appointed Prof. Venugopal.
It was argued by them that the Chancellor had initially chosen Prof. Venugopal based on the recommendation made by the first search committee. However, the Government did not grant its concurrence to appoint Prof. Venugopal then. Following this the Chancellor had, in concurrence with the Government asked for setting up of the second search committee and based on its recommendation had appointed Prof. Venugopal.
It was argued that no concurrence of the government was required for appointing the V-C based on the second search committee’s recommendation.
Also it was pointed out to the Division Bench that the government had given post facto approval to Prof. Venugopal’s appointment on June 26, 2018, and hence his appointment is valid.
However, the Division Bench refused to accept these contentions of the appellants while observing that, “Any ratification said to have been made on June 28, 2018, to the appointment order dated June 12, 2018, cannot cure the defects and validate the invalid action.”
